Cantr II Discussion Forum

Due to the many misunderstandings and posts containing misinformation, I am opening up this topic so that members of the community can ask questions regarding the things they find to be lacking in clarity.

The following will NOT be discussed:

• PD investigation techniques
• Results of PD investigations (if you have questions pertaining to an investigation you were involved in, or of, then please use the PM or Email for private communications.

While I will do my best to answer your questions, there may be instances that I will have to defer to those in higher authority and as such will have to await answering until given the clearance to do so.

To begin, this post came from an earlier topic:

Marian wrote:But Cdls, I feel it would be helpful if you defined 'scouting areas' and how the PD even determines that? Because obviously most players in the EZ have multiple characters spread across a good chunk of Treefeather and Cantr. Is the rule then that they can't ever have a char visit a town they've recently had another in? And what's the definition of 'recently' there? And of course there are many, many situations where players have two of them visiting the same town, often at the same time. This is explicitly permitted as part of the CR and even with (what we now know are incredibly misleading) suggestions for how to handle it on the wiki.

A good rule of thumb is that if you have a character involved in an event that will have an affect on a town that you have another character, you should have that other character sleep until the event has concluded. To avoid suspicion, the character should go inside. While RP is highly important, maintaining a fair game for all is of higher importance and as such, trumps RP.

The above is mainly a guideline for violent/negative events (pirate raids, war, etc)

When you have other types of events (social gatherings, trade expeditions, etc), It is allowable to play the characters as you normally would. For trade events, it would be best to have the trading character make all attempts to trade with someone other than yours, but if for some reason it is impossible, then PD should be contacted with information regarding the trade (ie. amounts and items) so that it can be reviewed. It would be best to wait on finalizing the trade until PD contacts you with the decision.

Marian wrote:It also seems like you've implied that a player can't have two of their characters interact with another in anything but a completely neutral way. Having two characters trade with Coventina, or have a friendly conversation with Elyos, for instance, wouldn't be allowed if one of them might ever, at any point in their lives, have IC reasons to drag another char or use a weapon on their behalf? How is anyone even supposed to know when or where their chars might be put into a situation where they may have to use violence?

There was no intended implication of that at all, but if you inferred it, please let me know what caused you to think that and I will do my best to explain further.

Regarding interactions, I think the statement above covers it, but if not, please let me know what isn't clear and I will explain further.

Cdls, thanks for posting this, I think it will be very informative and helpful.

The forum just ate my response and it's late so I'll probably rewrite it tomorrow.

I'll likely be PMing you as well, as I've been involved with an extremely frustrating case...well actually, three cases, with such wildly differing responses from the PD I've been left utterly confused and soured on many aspects of the game. :/

edit: I guess I'll just add quickly that this:

A good rule of thumb is that if you have a character involved in an event that will have an affect on a town that you have another character, you should have that other character sleep until the event has concluded. To avoid suspicion, the character should go inside. While RP is highly important, maintaining a fair game for all is of higher importance and as such, trumps RP.

The above is mainly a guideline for violent/negative events (pirate raids, war, etc)

When you have other types of events (social gatherings, trade expeditions, etc), It is allowable to play the characters as you normally would. For trade events, it would be best to have the trading character make all attempts to trade with someone other than yours, but if for some reason it is impossible, then PD should be contacted with information regarding the trade (ie. amounts and items) so that it can be reviewed. It would be best to wait on finalizing the trade until PD contacts you with the decision.

edit2: Actually, forget it, I shouldn't write long posts at 3am. I'll PM the details. I just want to point out that all of the above isn't the case in every situation, and it's another one of those sore points for me on account of how unevenly it's applied. Sometimes, even a completely peaceful situation in which one character sleeps with their notifications turned off can lead to major consequences for the player. Taking a character inside is good advice though and perhaps should go on the wiki? Though I feel pretty strongly at this point the wiki information as given vs how it's actually enforced isn't reliable and the only really safe option is to never, ever have characters cross paths, ever, even if they have to resort to completely OOC behavior or inform the people they're traveling with of the need for it through an OOC message.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I've killed one of my characters to prevent the above from ever having a chance of happening, and I don't feel it was an overreaction given what I've seen of how such situations can be handled.

My character, A, was once told that one of my other characters, B, is a dangerous pirate and should be locked up on first sighting. Does that mean that B must never visit A's town unless A is out of town, to avoid a situation where I would have to imprison one of my own characters? It would be out of character for A not to try to imprison B if they were to be introduced.

Seko has a very valid point.
Can I then also take this to mean that A) All of my chars can go to Klojt for the festival (the ones that it is IC for) and
b)can interact with each other simply in terms of conversations? Like "oh you''re interesting why are you covered in dirt" or "other character: Oh yeah B is magic" "my char a: oh wow really B? Can you show me?"
Obviously as a player it's not much fun to RP/converse with yourself and it could be argued that it's benefiting your other char (say char A has a unique business, and meets char B, who is travelling, and doesn't buy anything but tells their hometown about it, thus spreading word of their business).

As a general rule, if I think I am approaching a "grey area" situation, is it best for me to get in touch with the PD first, and ask them about/alert them to my plans?

Marian wrote:I just want to point out that all of the above isn't the case in every situation, and it's another one of those sore points for me on account of how unevenly it's applied. Sometimes, even a completely peaceful situation in which one character sleeps with their notifications turned off can lead to major consequences for the player.

Can you provide an example in how it was applied unevenly, or a case in which a character slept during an event yet still carried consequences for the player? It would probably be best to PM me the example to protect the anonymity of the event/players involved, unless you can post it here in a way that doesn't reveal any in game information. I will reply with the answer here regardless.

Marian wrote:Taking a character inside is good advice though and perhaps should go on the wiki? Though I feel pretty strongly at this point the wiki information as given vs how it's actually enforced isn't reliable and the only really safe option is to never, ever have characters cross paths, ever, even if they have to resort to completely OOC behavior or inform the people they're traveling with of the need for it through an OOC message.

I don't handle Wiki stuff, but I will pass along the request to those who can make such changes. As for enforcement, it should be handled uniformly with the only exceptions being made to those found to be using OOC motivations or to be cheating in some way. If this has not been the case and there have been instances where enforcement wasn't warranted, or believed to be warranted, then send me the details via PM so that I can look into it and speak with those involved.

Marian wrote:As I mentioned in the other thread, I've killed one of my characters to prevent the above from ever having a chance of happening, and I don't feel it was an overreaction given what I've seen of how such situations can be handled.

And this is why I wanted to open a thread like this. Players should not have to feel the need to kill off their characters for such reasons.

SekoETC wrote:My character, A, was once told that one of my other characters, B, is a dangerous pirate and should be locked up on first sighting. Does that mean that B must never visit A's town unless A is out of town, to avoid a situation where I would have to imprison one of my own characters? It would be out of character for A not to try to imprison B if they were to be introduced.

This would fall under an example I posted earlier (or maybe it was another thread. I think Marian quoted it in their reply above). Pirates and those types of characters should not venture to a town in which you have another character. It would also fall under the example of needing one character to sleep if a second would have actions that would affect the town. If you feel that your specific case is in need of an exception or falls outside these boundaries, please PM me with the details of why and we can discuss it further.

prometheus wrote:Can I then also take this to mean that A) All of my chars can go to Klojt for the festival (the ones that it is IC for) and
b)can interact with each other simply in terms of conversations? Like "oh you''re interesting why are you covered in dirt" or "other character: Oh yeah B is magic" "my char a: oh wow really B? Can you show me?"

Unless restrictions have been placed on your account, and the conversations happen naturally it shouldn't be a problem. The only issue would be that there is no real magic in Cantr (although I am assuming you were just using that as an example and not meaning that the character was really magic).

prometheus wrote:Obviously as a player it's not much fun to RP/converse with yourself and it could be argued that it's benefiting your other char (say char A has a unique business, and meets char B, who is travelling, and doesn't buy anything but tells their hometown about it, thus spreading word of their business).

No, it isn't fun to converse with yourself, although some people do enjoy it to some extent. In regards to your example, the characters cannot spread word about their other characters business, regardless of IC motivations. It is one example in which fairness would trump RP.

JosiahH wrote:As a general rule, if I think I am approaching a "grey area" situation, is it best for me to get in touch with the PD first, and ask them about/alert them to my plans?

Yes, always if you feel that to be the case.

Cdls wrote:Pirates and those types of characters should not venture to a town in which you have another character.

Is there any indication anywhere that this is the case? And what precisely constitutes that sort of character? How often and how recently do you need to drag, attack, steal, or break locks to be considered a criminal that must avoid all of their other characters?

I think the real problem here is not that people may realize there's a gray area, but that they have no idea there is a gray area at all, because it is not listed in the rules. And I think these things had no specific rules against them because it is entirely possible to wind up in a town where you already have a character with no consent of your own.

Kyriel wrote:Is there any indication anywhere that this is the case? And what precisely constitutes that sort of character? How often and how recently do you need to drag, attack, steal, or break locks to be considered a criminal that must avoid all of their other characters?

I think players themselves have a pretty good idea if their own character is a pirate or a character that falls into that type of category. Secondly, it isn't based solely on the actions of dragging-attacking-stealing or lock breaking, but more so the intention behind the actions that dictate the type of character it is. If for some reason a player cannot tell if their character falls into that category, or if they feel they have a special circumstance, then they need to contact the PD for guidance.

Kyriel wrote:I think the real problem here is not that people may realize there's a gray area, but that they have no idea there is a gray area at all, because it is not listed in the rules. And I think these things had no specific rules against them because it is entirely possible to wind up in a town where you already have a character with no consent of your own.

I have said it time and time again, I do agree that there should be more clarity and hopefully that will be rectified soon. In the meantime, that is one of the reasons I wanted to open this thread, so hopefully that those that have those types of questions can ask them.

New players are going to get a warning, right? Nobody is going to get their accounts locked without warning? This is not just a matter of documentation. You can't take action against someone and then tell them, sorry dude we haven't updated that yet. Telling them someone will get around to update the rules eventually is not much comfort to someone who is being punished for something they didn't know was against the rules.

And yes, I am sure that a player will know what kind of character they are playing, but will the PD agree with them on that? I don't think that's really much of a judgment call there. "I'm not a bandit, just a mercenary." "I'm not a pirate, just an opportunist." "I'm not a murderer, just an overly enthusiastic town guard."

I'd like to know if things have always been handled this way or if this is new. And if it's new what spurred the change. And like Kyriel said, are players given warnings?

Kyriel wrote:New players are going to get a warning, right? Nobody is going to get their accounts locked without warning?

In all the years of Cantr operating, how many times has this even happened for it to be a concern. None.

The only time an account gets locked is if it is deemed necessary to prevent an issue from escalating or the player gives reason for it to happen. It is never done without reason.

Kyriel wrote:This is not just a matter of documentation. You can't take action against someone and then tell them, sorry dude we haven't updated that yet. Telling them someone will get around to update the rules eventually is not much comfort to someone who is being punished for something they didn't know was against the rules.

None of the rules have or are changing so your comment doesn't make much sense. The only thing that is happening is discussion on how to make clearer what is already there.

Kyriel wrote:And yes, I am sure that a player will know what kind of character they are playing, but will the PD agree with them on that? I don't think that's really much of a judgment call there. "I'm not a bandit, just a mercenary." "I'm not a pirate, just an opportunist." "I'm not a murderer, just an overly enthusiastic town guard."

The PD is more than capable of making the distinctions.

Millhouse wrote:I'd like to know if things have always been handled this way or if this is new. And if it's new what spurred the change. And like Kyriel said, are players given warnings?

Yes, the game has always been moderated based on the CR. As for players and warnings, it depends on the situation and the history with the player, but as stated above, accounts don't get locked unless there is a real reason for it to happen.

Specifically, have there always be distinctions between how violent characters conduct themselves versus non-violent ones. Some precedent or something? I didn't know there was a difference until now.

If some characters are held to different rules than others, then yes, there is either a change or something that has not been documented by either way there is no way for anyone to know about this. This is not stated anywhere, and this is honestly the first time or anyone else here has heard of this, I think. No this is not common sense. This is a trap that has left me and plenty of other players afraid of even playing lest we run into some other unwritten rule. If the rules are not going to be clearly stated anywhere, how is anyone to know what the rules actually are? You cannot enforce rules that are not listed. You cannot expect people to know about things that you have not made publicly available anywhere. No, just waving your hand and say it will get updated some time and needs to be updated is not helpful at all.

Tell me again how I will not be locked without warning for some rule that I had no way of knowing about before hand. Because we're honestly not very confident in that right now. You've just said that there are rules that are not publicly posted that are still be enforced anyway. What, exactly, are people supposed to think about that?

Millhouse wrote:Specifically, have there always be distinctions between how violent characters conduct themselves versus non-violent ones. Some precedent or something? I didn't know there was a difference until now.

There are no differences. I think you are misunderstanding. You can play your violent character(s) however you like, you just cannot have them venture to towns your other characters are established in so as to not create an unfair advantage for others.

The reason for that is (due to others doing this) using the one character to spy on the town and its actions so that the other can have an easier time in doing what it plans on doing.



Kyriel -

It isn't a change and has been around for at least as long as I have been playing. The rule has been the same since the beginning, and it isn't changing in the slightest. The only thing changing is providing some clarity on how that rule is applied.

Secondly, I don't have to "tell you anything again". This thread isn't here to soothe your hurt feelings. It is here to try and provide clarity on things that aren't so clear for players. If you want to stand on a soapbox and speak about how you don't like X or Y, then contact the proper people as I am not them.

So to be clear - If you have a question, ask it. I will answer it. If you want to complain about how things are done, do it somewhere else and stop cluttering up this thread.

Also of note, something that should be read:

Joshuamonkey wrote:In a message from Jos to the GAB on October 19th, 2015:

Jos wrote:The CR has always been vague and, in my strong opinion, should be vague. Many detailed rules that have evolved since as implications of the CR have, in my mind, done more damage than good (and I know most PD members disagree with me), because people forget the reason behind / spirit of the rule and focus on some practical details (like, no two characters in a town, etc.). I sincerely hope the current push for transparency is not translated into more detailed rules - better to focus on better descriptions of the idea behind the rule or discussions about the rule on the forum etc. so that players get a feel for what is meant by it.

http://forum.cantr.org/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=27258&start=90#p558323